Summary: Near home, one of Odysseus' men opens Ailos' bag of winds, causing a storm to blow them back to the Ailoian island, where Ailos refuses to help them again. After sailing to the land of the Laistygones, where many of Odysseus' companions are killed by the powerful inhabitants, the men come to the island of Aiaia, where Odysseus earns the trust of the goddess Circe, through the help of Hermes, and she informs them that they must make a journey to Hades in order to be able to return home.
Paraphrase: Book 10, Lines 270-280
The man said something to me, and I responded to him: 'I will let you stay here with food and drink, or you may go back to the ship if you'd like. I will go alone. I feel within me a powerful urge to go.' This is what I said, and I went on my way. Once I had walked through the beautiful valleys and the massive house of the medicinally skilled goddes was in sight, the god Hermes, disguised as a young, bearded man, approached me.
Close Reading: Line 273: 'I shall go. For there is strong compulsion upon me.'
I chose this line for a few reasons. First of all, I found the use of the word 'compulsion' to be interesting. Compulsion is defined by dictionary.com as 'a strong, usually irresitible impulse to perform an act, especially one that is irrational or contrary to one's will.' Throughout this work, Odysseus is very diligent and thoughful when deciding when and how to act. The thought of Odysseus performing an act based upon impulse seems very contradictory. This lead me to examine the surrounding text more closely. The word 'upon' seemed interesting to me. This word places Odysseus' compulsion outside of himself. He does not say that he feels a compulsion, or that one is within him, but rather says that there is one 'upon' him. Therefore, this compulsion must have been placed on him by an outside force. Eight lines later, after heading out on his way, Odysseus encounters the god Hermes, who aids him. Because of this encounter with a god so shortly after Odysseus' 'compulsion' is placed 'upon' him, I believe that the gods influenced Odysseus to act. This makes sense within the context of the story, as characters are often influenced by the gods.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
The Odyssey: Book Three
Summary: Telemachos, accompanied by Athene, travels to Pylos where Nestor welcomes them into their ceremony honoring Poseidon, and Telemachos asks him about his father and Nestor tells him the story of Agamemnon and informs him that he does not know the fate of Odysseus.
Paraphrase: Book 3, lines 25-34
Pallas Athene responed to Telemachos: 'You will think of some of the things you should say by yourself. The rest will be provided by the gods. You would not be alive now without the help of the gods.' After saying this, the goddess Athene led Telemachos to the Pylos gathering. The king of Pylos, Nester, was at the gathering with his sons near him, and his servants arranged a meal.
Close reading: Line 30 'and the man followed behind her walking in the gods' footsteps'
I chose this line because it exemplifies the relationship between mortals and the gods in this work. It is repeatedly stated throughout this work that anything that happens is a result of the will of one or more of the gods. For this reason, much importance is placed upon honoring the gods through ceremony, prayer, and sacrifice as well as upon living your life based on the example of the gods. This constant influence from the gods shapes the actions of all the people present in this story. Most notably, Athene's influence is what pushes Telemachos on his journey. In this line, 'the man' is referring to Telemachos, and 'the god's footsteps' are those of Athene. Without Athene on his and Odysseus side, Telemachos would not have began his journey. At the very beginning of this story, Athene talks with Zeus and the other gods about Odysseus' fate. They decide that he has endured enough hardship and that he deserves to finally come home. This establishes the importance of the gods in this work. Without the will of the gods, this story would never have come to be. This makes me wonder about the level of importance placed upon the individual in this society. With the constant mention of the gods, and with the insistence of characters to give full credit to the gods for all successes, I wonder how genuine the actions of Telemachos and Odysseus can be. If they are always 'walking in the gods' footsteps', how genuine are the actions that they carry out? Without the presence of the gods, how would Telemachos and Odysseus be different?
Paraphrase: Book 3, lines 25-34
Pallas Athene responed to Telemachos: 'You will think of some of the things you should say by yourself. The rest will be provided by the gods. You would not be alive now without the help of the gods.' After saying this, the goddess Athene led Telemachos to the Pylos gathering. The king of Pylos, Nester, was at the gathering with his sons near him, and his servants arranged a meal.
Close reading: Line 30 'and the man followed behind her walking in the gods' footsteps'
I chose this line because it exemplifies the relationship between mortals and the gods in this work. It is repeatedly stated throughout this work that anything that happens is a result of the will of one or more of the gods. For this reason, much importance is placed upon honoring the gods through ceremony, prayer, and sacrifice as well as upon living your life based on the example of the gods. This constant influence from the gods shapes the actions of all the people present in this story. Most notably, Athene's influence is what pushes Telemachos on his journey. In this line, 'the man' is referring to Telemachos, and 'the god's footsteps' are those of Athene. Without Athene on his and Odysseus side, Telemachos would not have began his journey. At the very beginning of this story, Athene talks with Zeus and the other gods about Odysseus' fate. They decide that he has endured enough hardship and that he deserves to finally come home. This establishes the importance of the gods in this work. Without the will of the gods, this story would never have come to be. This makes me wonder about the level of importance placed upon the individual in this society. With the constant mention of the gods, and with the insistence of characters to give full credit to the gods for all successes, I wonder how genuine the actions of Telemachos and Odysseus can be. If they are always 'walking in the gods' footsteps', how genuine are the actions that they carry out? Without the presence of the gods, how would Telemachos and Odysseus be different?
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
"To His Coy Mistress" by Andrew Marvell
Summary: If we had all the time in the world, we could develop our love however slow we wanted to, but, time is unrelenting, and we must make the most of our love during the short time that we are alive.
Paraphrase: If we had an unlimited amount of time on this earth, your patience with our relationship would be forgiven. We could spend as much time figuring out what to do with our love as we wanted. If you were to find riches next to a goddess, I would be upset in my hometown. I would love you till the end of the time, and it would be ok if you waited till then to love me back. My small love would grow very large over a long amount of time. I would spend thousands of years adoring each of your beautiful features. I would spend the most time loving your heart. You deserve this, I would give you nothing less. Unfortunaley, we do not have forever. I am constantly reminded about the reality of time. Everything is destroyed by time, and you, my love, will eventually fall victim to time's relentless destruction. While we are young, and relatively untainted by time, we should fully embrace our love and give all of ourselves to it. Although we cannot slow time, we can make the most of it, and share a lifetime of love together.
Close Reading: 'Time's winged chariot hurrying near;'
This line is the second line of the second stanza. In the first line of this stanza, the speaker begins with the word 'but'. This begins an obvious shift in the poem. In the first stanza, the speaker espouts his love for his mistress by discussing a hypothetical situation in which they would have all of eternity to be together. In the second stanza, the speaker discusses the unrelenting force of time, and how it will eventually claim himself, his mistress, and their love. Although this notion that time will eventually destroy all seems bleak, the second line of the second stanza hints that the speaker does not necessarily view time as a negative thing. I say this because of the words 'winged chariot'. A chariot is a horse carriage used by many ancient civilizations, including Rome and Greece. In Greek mythology, the sun god Helios pulled the sun across the sky each morning using a chariot pulled by four winged horses. Performing this act every morning ensured life for all Greek people. The use of this reference doesn't seem to fit with the tone of the rest of the stanza. Perhaps the speaker is being sarcastic by using this reference. Or maybe he is hinting at the fact that he is not truly bothered by time and its destructive powers.
Paraphrase: If we had an unlimited amount of time on this earth, your patience with our relationship would be forgiven. We could spend as much time figuring out what to do with our love as we wanted. If you were to find riches next to a goddess, I would be upset in my hometown. I would love you till the end of the time, and it would be ok if you waited till then to love me back. My small love would grow very large over a long amount of time. I would spend thousands of years adoring each of your beautiful features. I would spend the most time loving your heart. You deserve this, I would give you nothing less. Unfortunaley, we do not have forever. I am constantly reminded about the reality of time. Everything is destroyed by time, and you, my love, will eventually fall victim to time's relentless destruction. While we are young, and relatively untainted by time, we should fully embrace our love and give all of ourselves to it. Although we cannot slow time, we can make the most of it, and share a lifetime of love together.
Close Reading: 'Time's winged chariot hurrying near;'
This line is the second line of the second stanza. In the first line of this stanza, the speaker begins with the word 'but'. This begins an obvious shift in the poem. In the first stanza, the speaker espouts his love for his mistress by discussing a hypothetical situation in which they would have all of eternity to be together. In the second stanza, the speaker discusses the unrelenting force of time, and how it will eventually claim himself, his mistress, and their love. Although this notion that time will eventually destroy all seems bleak, the second line of the second stanza hints that the speaker does not necessarily view time as a negative thing. I say this because of the words 'winged chariot'. A chariot is a horse carriage used by many ancient civilizations, including Rome and Greece. In Greek mythology, the sun god Helios pulled the sun across the sky each morning using a chariot pulled by four winged horses. Performing this act every morning ensured life for all Greek people. The use of this reference doesn't seem to fit with the tone of the rest of the stanza. Perhaps the speaker is being sarcastic by using this reference. Or maybe he is hinting at the fact that he is not truly bothered by time and its destructive powers.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
"This Is a Photograph of Me" by Margaret Atwood
Summary: The speaker describes what is in an old photograph, and informs the reader that she is dead in the lake in the photograph.
Paraphrase: If you look close enough at this old, worn photograph, you will see a tree, a small home, a lake and some hills in the background. I drowned in this lake. If you look very closely, you might be able to see my corpse just below the surface of the water in the center of the lake.
Close Reading: "the day after I drowned."
This is the first time that the word 'I' is used in this poem. Prior to this, there is no indication that the speaker is personally involved with the action of this poem. Therefore, this is the first line that begins constructing a self within this poem. Another function of this line, is that it defines a timeline. The only other line that discusses time is the first line. The first line describes when the photograph was taken. It says 'It was taken some time ago'. Although this is quite vague, it establishes that the photogragh is at least fairly old. When the speaker reveals that she died the day before the photograph was taken, it means that she died a day before 'some time ago'. The fact that the speaker in this poem has been dead for a while, is quite shocking. The only other poem I know of that has a dead speaker is "The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner". I see some similarities between these two poems. Both discuss death in a very matter-of-fact way, as if it is not a very significant detail. In the Atwood poem, the speaker is much more concerned with describing what is in the photograph then discussing her death. Also, the use of parenthesis around the final four stanzas makes these stanzas seem trivial in importance. Perhaps this poem is trying to convey the idea that some things, such as a beautiful picture, or a found memory are more significant than death. That even death cannot destroy these things. Another possible meaning is that people endure after death. I say this because of the last stanza. The speaker says "but if you look long enough/ eventually/ you will see me.)' The fact that the speaker is able to be seen in the photograph could mean that she is still alive in spirit.
Paraphrase: If you look close enough at this old, worn photograph, you will see a tree, a small home, a lake and some hills in the background. I drowned in this lake. If you look very closely, you might be able to see my corpse just below the surface of the water in the center of the lake.
Close Reading: "the day after I drowned."
This is the first time that the word 'I' is used in this poem. Prior to this, there is no indication that the speaker is personally involved with the action of this poem. Therefore, this is the first line that begins constructing a self within this poem. Another function of this line, is that it defines a timeline. The only other line that discusses time is the first line. The first line describes when the photograph was taken. It says 'It was taken some time ago'. Although this is quite vague, it establishes that the photogragh is at least fairly old. When the speaker reveals that she died the day before the photograph was taken, it means that she died a day before 'some time ago'. The fact that the speaker in this poem has been dead for a while, is quite shocking. The only other poem I know of that has a dead speaker is "The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner". I see some similarities between these two poems. Both discuss death in a very matter-of-fact way, as if it is not a very significant detail. In the Atwood poem, the speaker is much more concerned with describing what is in the photograph then discussing her death. Also, the use of parenthesis around the final four stanzas makes these stanzas seem trivial in importance. Perhaps this poem is trying to convey the idea that some things, such as a beautiful picture, or a found memory are more significant than death. That even death cannot destroy these things. Another possible meaning is that people endure after death. I say this because of the last stanza. The speaker says "but if you look long enough/ eventually/ you will see me.)' The fact that the speaker is able to be seen in the photograph could mean that she is still alive in spirit.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
"Charon's Cosmology" by Charles Simic
Summary: An unnamed man has the job of disposing of corpses, and he loots their pockets before disposing of them.
Paraphrase: He only has a weak light to find his way, and he has many dead bodies to deal with. Told to take the bodies to one side, he may be confused because of the large amount of bodies on each side. This isn't really important though. The man will loot the dead bodies. He often finds food. Rarely he finds a mirror or a book. These things are not important to him, and he disposes of them in the quick, lifeless river.
Close Reading: "Swift and cold and deep"
This line is a series of adjectives. There is not an object in this line, therefore the object that these adjectives are describing must be in a previous line. In the second line of this stanza, the word 'which' seperates two clauses. Because of this, we can rule out any objects before 'which' as being the object modified by the final line. This leaves two possible objects that these adjectives describe: 'he' and 'the dark river'. Because 'he' is performing an action, 'throws', I believe that 'the dark river' is the object being modified. I don't feel that the adjectives 'swift', 'cold', and 'deep' would be used to describe how the man throws. However, these words seem to fit with 'the dark river'. Because of the fact that there are only two adjectives present prior to line 15, I believe that this description of the dark river bears some major significance. The first three stanzas of this poem describe a man performing his job. His job is to dispose of corpses. The first 14 lines simply describes what he does in plain, declarative phrases. No thorough descriptions of any nouns are made. This is why I feel the description of 'river' with the four words 'dark', 'swift', 'cold', and 'deep' has implicit meaning. Because the main motif of this poem is death, I feel that this description of the river is a metaphor for death. I say this because the adjectives 'dark', 'swift', 'cold' and 'deep' could also be used to describe death. Death is quick, leaves the dead in complete darkness and their body cold, and death has often be compared to deep sleep, which makes the advective 'deep' fit. This could be a stretch, because the final stanza does not discuss death, but instead is about the objects the man finds with the dead. In the first 14 lines, this poem presents death as an everyday thing by showing it through the eyes of the Charon. No abstract meaning of death is presented. In the final two lines, it uses the river as a symbol to describe how profound death is.
Paraphrase: He only has a weak light to find his way, and he has many dead bodies to deal with. Told to take the bodies to one side, he may be confused because of the large amount of bodies on each side. This isn't really important though. The man will loot the dead bodies. He often finds food. Rarely he finds a mirror or a book. These things are not important to him, and he disposes of them in the quick, lifeless river.
Close Reading: "Swift and cold and deep"
This line is a series of adjectives. There is not an object in this line, therefore the object that these adjectives are describing must be in a previous line. In the second line of this stanza, the word 'which' seperates two clauses. Because of this, we can rule out any objects before 'which' as being the object modified by the final line. This leaves two possible objects that these adjectives describe: 'he' and 'the dark river'. Because 'he' is performing an action, 'throws', I believe that 'the dark river' is the object being modified. I don't feel that the adjectives 'swift', 'cold', and 'deep' would be used to describe how the man throws. However, these words seem to fit with 'the dark river'. Because of the fact that there are only two adjectives present prior to line 15, I believe that this description of the dark river bears some major significance. The first three stanzas of this poem describe a man performing his job. His job is to dispose of corpses. The first 14 lines simply describes what he does in plain, declarative phrases. No thorough descriptions of any nouns are made. This is why I feel the description of 'river' with the four words 'dark', 'swift', 'cold', and 'deep' has implicit meaning. Because the main motif of this poem is death, I feel that this description of the river is a metaphor for death. I say this because the adjectives 'dark', 'swift', 'cold' and 'deep' could also be used to describe death. Death is quick, leaves the dead in complete darkness and their body cold, and death has often be compared to deep sleep, which makes the advective 'deep' fit. This could be a stretch, because the final stanza does not discuss death, but instead is about the objects the man finds with the dead. In the first 14 lines, this poem presents death as an everyday thing by showing it through the eyes of the Charon. No abstract meaning of death is presented. In the final two lines, it uses the river as a symbol to describe how profound death is.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Heritage
Summary: The ideals of modern society clash with the speaker's feelings about his heritage, and result in an internal conflict regarding which side should shape the speaker's life, which goes largely unresolved.
Paraphrase: What does the land of my ancestors' mean to me? Is this land beautiful, or a wasteland?
Something within me yearns for the sights and sounds of this land. Society encourages me to repress these urges and not think about my homeland. I attempt to do this, but my heritage seems poised to pour out of me at any moment.
I am pushed by my society to see my homeland as a insignificant, ancient, wild place. The place I am now contains no elements of my homeland, and places little importance on the idea of heritage. This society is built on individualism and the present. What is my homeland to me?
Despite my attempts to deny my heritage, it continues to influence me. I feel it coursing through my veins at all hours of the day. It is calling me to rejoin the life of my ancestors.
The 'heathen' gods of my ancestors' were made to resemble their ethnicity. I have denied these gods, and my new god is Jesus Christ.
Although I have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, I have some lingering doubts. I often wish that the god I served was black. I will craft my own religion to satisfy my wishes. I will worship a god of my own design.
Whenever I feel urges to embrace my heritage, I must repress these thoughts. I am still conflicted as to how my heritage should influence my life in this society.
Close Reading: 'From the unremittent beat'
The object of this line is 'the unremittent beat'. The adjective 'unremittent' means lacking occasional abatement of symptoms. This word is usually used to refer to a fever. This seems to be a strange choice of word when referring to a beat. However, within the context of this stanza, it makes sense. Within the first seven lines of this stanza, the speaker uses an extended metaphor to descibe the influence he feels from his heritage. This metaphor compares this influece to people walking through his body. This metaphor can be seen by the line 'Walking through my body's streets.' This explains why the speaker would choice a word normally reserved for describing symptoms felt by the human body to descibe this 'beat'. The first word of this sentence, 'from', indicates that this line is a prepositional phrase. This means that the object, 'the unremittent beat', is related to part of the previous line. The line prior to this one, ends with 'no slight release'. This means that the speaker constantly feels this metaphoric beat in his body. This reinforces that the speaker always feels the influence of his heritage.
Paraphrase: What does the land of my ancestors' mean to me? Is this land beautiful, or a wasteland?
Something within me yearns for the sights and sounds of this land. Society encourages me to repress these urges and not think about my homeland. I attempt to do this, but my heritage seems poised to pour out of me at any moment.
I am pushed by my society to see my homeland as a insignificant, ancient, wild place. The place I am now contains no elements of my homeland, and places little importance on the idea of heritage. This society is built on individualism and the present. What is my homeland to me?
Despite my attempts to deny my heritage, it continues to influence me. I feel it coursing through my veins at all hours of the day. It is calling me to rejoin the life of my ancestors.
The 'heathen' gods of my ancestors' were made to resemble their ethnicity. I have denied these gods, and my new god is Jesus Christ.
Although I have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, I have some lingering doubts. I often wish that the god I served was black. I will craft my own religion to satisfy my wishes. I will worship a god of my own design.
Whenever I feel urges to embrace my heritage, I must repress these thoughts. I am still conflicted as to how my heritage should influence my life in this society.
Close Reading: 'From the unremittent beat'
The object of this line is 'the unremittent beat'. The adjective 'unremittent' means lacking occasional abatement of symptoms. This word is usually used to refer to a fever. This seems to be a strange choice of word when referring to a beat. However, within the context of this stanza, it makes sense. Within the first seven lines of this stanza, the speaker uses an extended metaphor to descibe the influence he feels from his heritage. This metaphor compares this influece to people walking through his body. This metaphor can be seen by the line 'Walking through my body's streets.' This explains why the speaker would choice a word normally reserved for describing symptoms felt by the human body to descibe this 'beat'. The first word of this sentence, 'from', indicates that this line is a prepositional phrase. This means that the object, 'the unremittent beat', is related to part of the previous line. The line prior to this one, ends with 'no slight release'. This means that the speaker constantly feels this metaphoric beat in his body. This reinforces that the speaker always feels the influence of his heritage.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Anecdote of the Jar
One sentence paraphrase: I set a jar in the wilderness, and the wilderness attempted to consume the jar, but the jar defied the wilderness.
Paragraph paraphrase: I set a jar on a hill in Tennessee. The jar's presence caused the wilderness to surround it. The wilderness engulfed the jar as if it had an organized plan. The jar holds steadfast, as if in quiet defiance. The wilderness continues its assault on the jar, and wears it down. Despite this, the jar never fully gives in to nature, and remains a seperate and unique entity.
Close reading: "It did not give of bird or bush"
The first thing that strikes me about this line, is the fact that the subject, 'it', refers to the jar. The jar is carrying out an action in this line. The next three words, 'did not give', is what the jar is doing. The jar is opposing some sort of force, and is refusing to give into it. The last three words, 'bird or bush', is what the jar is opposing. So, in this line, the jar is actively refusing to give into either 'bird or bush'. Taken literally, this doesn't really make sense. A jar, an inatimate object, could not possibly oppose living organisms, birds or bushes. This likely means that this line is metaphoric or symbolic. Looking at the poem as a whole, a possible meaning for this line emerges. Throughout the poem, there is a subtle struggle, or argument, between the jar and the wilderness. The wilderness confronts the jar in line 5: 'The wilderness rose up to it'. Although the jar does not make any indication that it will actively participate in a confrontation with the wilderness in this stanza, it does show that it has a certain level of strength and possibly defiance in line 8: 'And tall and of a port in air.' This line demonstrates that the jar has a certain level of strength. I say this because of the words 'tall' and 'port'. These words represent sturdiness and a cetain level of strength. Because of this suble indication that the jar has strength and could possibly defy the confrontation instigated by the wilderness, I believe that 'bird or bush' symbolizes wilderness in line 11. This brings us to the symbol of the jar. I believe that the jar is meant to symbolize man-made structures that encroach upon nature. Although, I suppose it could also symbolize mankind itself. In either case, it is clear that this force, the one represented by the jar, forces a stalemate with nature in line 11. Throughout the poem, the argument between the jar and the wilderness progresses. The wilderness is the dominant force up until line 11. Because the jar 'did not give of bird or bush', the argument goes unresolved. The jar refuses to be taken over by the wilderness, and, for better or worse, both sides remain seperate and defiant of each other.
Paragraph paraphrase: I set a jar on a hill in Tennessee. The jar's presence caused the wilderness to surround it. The wilderness engulfed the jar as if it had an organized plan. The jar holds steadfast, as if in quiet defiance. The wilderness continues its assault on the jar, and wears it down. Despite this, the jar never fully gives in to nature, and remains a seperate and unique entity.
Close reading: "It did not give of bird or bush"
The first thing that strikes me about this line, is the fact that the subject, 'it', refers to the jar. The jar is carrying out an action in this line. The next three words, 'did not give', is what the jar is doing. The jar is opposing some sort of force, and is refusing to give into it. The last three words, 'bird or bush', is what the jar is opposing. So, in this line, the jar is actively refusing to give into either 'bird or bush'. Taken literally, this doesn't really make sense. A jar, an inatimate object, could not possibly oppose living organisms, birds or bushes. This likely means that this line is metaphoric or symbolic. Looking at the poem as a whole, a possible meaning for this line emerges. Throughout the poem, there is a subtle struggle, or argument, between the jar and the wilderness. The wilderness confronts the jar in line 5: 'The wilderness rose up to it'. Although the jar does not make any indication that it will actively participate in a confrontation with the wilderness in this stanza, it does show that it has a certain level of strength and possibly defiance in line 8: 'And tall and of a port in air.' This line demonstrates that the jar has a certain level of strength. I say this because of the words 'tall' and 'port'. These words represent sturdiness and a cetain level of strength. Because of this suble indication that the jar has strength and could possibly defy the confrontation instigated by the wilderness, I believe that 'bird or bush' symbolizes wilderness in line 11. This brings us to the symbol of the jar. I believe that the jar is meant to symbolize man-made structures that encroach upon nature. Although, I suppose it could also symbolize mankind itself. In either case, it is clear that this force, the one represented by the jar, forces a stalemate with nature in line 11. Throughout the poem, the argument between the jar and the wilderness progresses. The wilderness is the dominant force up until line 11. Because the jar 'did not give of bird or bush', the argument goes unresolved. The jar refuses to be taken over by the wilderness, and, for better or worse, both sides remain seperate and defiant of each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)